Search for: "People v Weeks" Results 321 - 340 of 15,429
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Feb 2024, 3:03 am by Will Baude
  As the article goes to press in the next few weeks, it remains very close in substance to the versions from last fall. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 3:47 pm by Cooper Quintin
The article made allegations without providing substantive evidence and was based solely on interviews conducted with several people. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 2:35 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
The case is the most significant elections matter the justices have been forced to confront since the Bush v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 9:36 am by Eugene Volokh
Floyd's efforts heightened the threat to the Capitol in the weeks leading up to Lincoln's inauguration. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 4:20 pm by Yosi Yahoudai
“I do feel as though there are people who come to worship every week, who feel very much alienated, they feel beaten down by the systems. [read post]
7 Feb 2024, 1:34 pm
When this opinion was initially published last week, I thought: "Whoa. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:36 pm by Marty Lederman
As I explained in one of my earlier posts, several or all of the Justices might be inclined to decide the case on some ground that doesn’t require the Court to decide whether Donald Trump is eligible to be President, if such an “off-ramp” solution is legally available. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 9:58 am
It's a domestic violence case, so people might well have strong opinions at the outset. [read post]
5 Feb 2024, 7:23 am by Mark Ashton
Not many people making $800 a week can afford to drive a car that leases for $1,750 a month. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 4:40 pm by INFORRM
Last Week in the Courts On 29 January 2024, the consequentials hearing was heard following the judgment of The Duke of Sussex & Ors v MGN Ltd [2023] EWHC 3217 (Ch), handed down on 15 December 2023. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
 This claim is, of course, deeply counterintuitive, and it would be very awkward, to say the least, for the Supreme Court to explain to the American people that Section 3 doesn’t apply to someone who’s been President because although that person held an “office,” it wasn’t an office “of the United States. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 12:50 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
  This is also the underlying constitutional question in the Supreme Court's Moore v. [read post]